>This involves him, it is said, in the idiocy of placing Jesus
>simultaneously on the two animals, "he sat upon them" (KAI EPEKAQISEN
>EPANW AUTWN).
>
>What other explanation could there be? What if the AUTWN here refers
>not to the animals but to the hIMATIA?:
>
>KAI EPEQHKAN EP AUTWN TA hIMATIA, KAI EPEKAQISEN EPANW hIMATIA.
>
>How might we test this possibility? Well, Matt. 21.8 goes on to
>speak about the crowd throwing hEAUTWN TA hIMATIA on the ground,
>apparently stressing "their own" garments, as if the focus in the
>previous clause was not on AUTWN = animals but AUTWN = garments.
>
>I wonder if this is a case of paying too much attention to Synoptic
>parallels when one is doing exegesis? Mark speaks of Jesus
>mounting AUTON = the donkey (11.7) and we cast our eye across the
>synopsis to see AUTWN in Matt. and all too readily assume that this
>is donkeys.

Mark, the first EP' AUTWN in vs. 7 has to refer to the animals. TA hIMATIA
clearly is the object of the verb and EP' AUTWN indicates where they put
the garments. That means that even if you can apply the EPANW AUTWN to the
garments, he still sits on the garments which were placed on BOTH the
animals. The real question (not for b-greek) is why Matthew sees two
animals (perhaps connected to his love of fulfillment passages and the use
of KAI in the LXX). The mss represented by M, family 1, and a few others
have EPANW in front of both AUTWN's in vs 7.